On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Joyce <step...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > Jeffrey, > > I'd like to learn more about this. However since you sell a proprietary fork > of OpenAFS, it's difficult to discount your possible incentive to spread FUD > regarding OpenAFS. > > Therefore can you provide URIs with specific information to educate me (and > possibly others) regarding these contractual obligations related to binary > signing?
Last I knew, the the Apple agreements were behind a paywall (yes, you have to pay to get to see what you are being asked to agree to, and to make a request to be able to add kext signing to your dev certificate), but it is not really relevant. Interpretation of contractual obligations is something your lawyer needs to advise you on. Much as I would agree with Jeff, he is not your lawyer or mine, and nothing he says should be considered definitive to your specific situation or environment(*). As a member of a major university, I am confident you have excellent legal counsel available to you who may also be aware of any other contracts with Apple or Microsoft that might impact that evaluation (for all I know, unc has the right to sign kexts written by their students in a an introductory CS class for use in-house). Gary (*) I do trust Jeff has had his lawyer make the evaluation(s) for his specific situation. Because that is what he does, and because he can end up being out of business or sued for a bazillion dollars if he gets it "wrong", or just because someone decides they want to sue someone because they can. And, yes, he or his lawyers could be more risk adverse than some. So that is why you need your lawyers to do the evaluation for you. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info